Analysis · Debate reply · beta

Greg McLean

Conservative on Business of Supply 2026-10-27

118 words · 10 sentences · 12 clauses

Replying to Kevin Lamoureux (Liberal)

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the issue of the ability to invest. If we are investing in projects that will generate wonderful revenues into the future for government, is that not a wise thing? I think of LNG two. Yes, there is a cost to the federal government, but in the long run, there will also be phenomenal financial resources coming, with a return to the federal government. Would the member not agree that investing can mean many different forms of returns for Ottawa? That could be anything, including income tax and beyond. I would like his comments on the value of investing.”

Statement grade

Average 94 / 100

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Procedure 9%Claims 57%Positioning 9%Reasoning 13%The ask 12%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 11 wordsthat opens up a good avenue for me to talk about.Procedure Claims · 49 wordsLNG Canada should not require any government investment. Quite frankly, LNG one did not require any government investment.¹ LNG two should not require any government investment. What the Government of Canada is doing right now, under the Liberal Prime Minister, is effectively replacing private sector investment with government investment. Positioning · 11 wordsIt is inflated. It is not getting anything done particularly well, PositioningReasoning · 15 wordsas far as what they call investment goes, if there is no test to it. Claims · 18 wordsFrankly, it is displacing the investment that should be happening in our economy rather than adding to it. The ask · 14 wordsIt has to stop. We have to get the private sector back on track.

At a glance

Lost points for
AnsweredOf this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 76

3 of 3 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “that opens up a good avenue for me to talk about.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It is inflated.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “It is not getting anything done particularly well,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 3 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the point put to the member, and the motion under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · 100

0 of 3 deductions are Respect

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Nothing lost points.

Clarity · 100

0 of 3 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 1

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“LNG one did not require any government investment”LNG Canada Phase 1 (LNG 1) did not require any government investment from the Government of Canada.search

Analysed on 2026-10-29